I disagree. He had a very talented team when they were all in tact. Joe Johnson, Al Horford, and Josh Smith is a very talented trio. The fact he was able to so little with so much speaks to why I don't think he's a very good coach.

That's not all that true. Josh Smith had his best season with Woodson, and when he left, he's basically become a moronic chucker on offense. He's a very good defender but that seriously hurts the Hawks. Al Horford's best season was with Woodson as well. And Joe Johnson was a good player, but he was never elite or anything like that. Woodson did what he could with what he had.

Plus, if you don't have Pop coaching you, you take what you can get out there.

That's not all that true. Josh Smith had his best season with Woodson, and when he left, he's basically become a moronic chucker on offense. He's a very good defender but that seriously hurts the Hawks. Al Horford's best season was with Woodson as well. And Joe Johnson was a good player, but he was never elite or anything like that. Woodson did what he could with what he had.

Plus, if you don't have Pop coaching you, you take what you can get out there.

EDIT: Except for George Karl, he's absolutely terrible.

Meh, Smith has ALWAYS been this way though. Horford's seasons are very consistent, regardless of coach.

Okay, go ahead and take a coach who refuses to play a center in the 4th and would rather put Corey Brewer out there. I'll take a good one.

I'll take a guy who has a career 60% winning percentage. He has been very good with three different teams in Seattle, Milwaukee, and Denver. He is a good coach. I am not saying he is an all-time great, just that I would take him over Woodson.

I'll take a guy who has a career 60% winning percentage. He has been very good with three different teams in Seattle, Milwaukee, and Denver. He is a good coach. I am not saying he is an all-time great, just that I would take him over Woodson.

D'Antoni has proven that just talent means nothing. He is a coach that has noticeable flaws but has proven repeatedly he is a good coach.

No he hasn't, he's proven an ability to repeatedly get a job based on a reputation that is made up of pure ********. And D'Antoni did just fine with what he had in NY prior to last season, and even then, he wasn't doing that poorly. It's not exactly easy to come onto a team with a situation like the Lakers have.

I think Smith could be good under a good coach. His jump shooting is bad, but I think that's partially the coach (as Brody pointed out), and a lot of it is the fact that he's arguably the #1 option on the Hawks. Smith sucks as a #1 guy because he's not all that great at creating his own offense, but I think he could be pretty great if he was the #3 guy on a team and served as a stat stuffer. In that role he could focus on running the floor, putbacks, scrappy points, dishing when he drives (which he's actually pretty damn good at), plus his really good defense on top of that. Obviously he's not a max guy as a #3, but if you could bring take him at $10-12M or so he could be pretty valuable on the right team.

No he hasn't, he's proven an ability to repeatedly get a job based on a reputation that is made up of pure ********. And D'Antoni did just fine with what he had in NY prior to last season, and even then, he wasn't doing that poorly. It's not exactly easy to come onto a team with a situation like the Lakers have.

D'Antoni single handedly accelerated the destruction of Stat's knees by playing him 40 minutes a night with no rest. And he knew his knees were questionable and still barely played the bench or used a rotation. He was an awful coach.

I hate how we give him so much credit for being an offensive innovator. That's a bunch of ********. 7 seconds or less existed before him. He didn't innovate anything.